Cybernaut

Making assumptions about the nature of a thing without knowing the nature of it. We can't know how 'complicated' the answer is, so we can't know it's 'impossibly complicated'. It seems likely to be either the Intel deal being more than is 'recommended', or who is making the MB increasing the price vs 8750h MB, or a combination of those.

You are getting the only answers that can be provided. There really isn't any more that anyone can provide as it seems you won't be satisfied with any response.

Splendid

Simple Maths
If someone is willing to pay a small fortune for something, greed/capitalism allows this.
If you want to know what companies ARE ripping you off, just check their profit margin. It really is THAT simple.

Glorious

Making assumptions about the nature of a thing without knowing the nature of it. We can't know how 'complicated' the answer is, so we can't know it's 'impossibly complicated'. It seems likely to be either the Intel deal being more than is 'recommended', or who is making the MB increasing the price vs 8750h MB, or a combination of those.

One cannot prove a negative. Say I claim reindeer can't fly. I capture 100 reindeer, push them off a cliff, and all of them plummet to their deaths. I have not proven that reindeer cannot fly. I have only proven that those 100 reindeer could not fly. Even if I gathered every reindeer alive, and pushed them all off this cliff to their deaths, you could counter that the reindeer chose not to fly, for some reason preferring death over revealing their flying ability. It is impossible for me to prove that reindeer cannot fly.

OTOH, if you produce a single flying reindeer, then my claim is utterly and irrevocably disproven. Since proving a positive is possible, while proving a negative is impossible, the burden of proof falls upon the person advocating the positive hypothesis to prove it.

Likewise, we are telling you how pricing should work out if things are left to market forces. If you believe differently, it is not up to use to prove that Intel is not manipulating prices - that is impossible to prove. It is up to you to prove that Intel is manipulating prices. And speculation is not proof. You'll need to do some investigative reporting and get your hands on some of the contracts Intel makes with motherboard manufacturers. Yes we are making assumptions about the nature of the pricing. But lacking evidence to the contrary, these assumptions are the ones which have the highest probability of being correct. The situation changes if you can dig up evidence, but thus far you haven't provided any evidence. All you've done is post speculation, and attacked anyone who offered an explanation counter to your speculation.

ElectrO_90 :

Simple Maths
If someone is willing to pay a small fortune for something, greed/capitalism allows this.

Small correction. It is not greed which allows it. It is the fact that the buyer is getting more value out of the purchase than what it cost him to acquire it. If the buyer is getting $1000 worth of value out of the product, and is upset that the manufacturer is charging him $300 instead of $200, then it's the buyer who is being greedy. Not the seller.

This sort of resale with added value is what makes the economy work.

A mining company sells a quantity of iron ore to a refinery for $2, because it only cost them $1 to dig it up.
The refinery buys the ore for $2, because they can sell the refined iron to a smelter for $3.
The smelter buys it for $3 because they can sell the final steel ingot for $4.
The tool company buys the ingot for $4, because they can use it to make a hammer they sell for $5.
The hardware store buys the hammer for $5 because they can sell it for $6.
The carpenter buys the hammer for $6, because he can use it on his construction projects to get more than $6 of value out of it.

Splendid

A mining company sells a quantity of iron ore to a refinery for $2, because it only cost them $1 to dig it up.
The refinery buys the ore for $2, because they can sell the refined iron to a smelter for $3.
The smelter buys it for $3 because they can sell the final steel ingot for $4.
The tool company buys the ingot for $4, because they can use it to make a hammer they sell for $5.
The hardware store buys the hammer for $5 because they can sell it for $6.
The carpenter buys the hammer for $6, because he can use it on his construction projects to get more than $6 of value out of it.

Change the tool company selling the hammer for $50
then change the hardware company selling the hammer for $100

Then you can see it's a rip off, just like memory and many other things.
Putting low value on it, makes it look better in your eyes, but the truth is, nothing is marketed or sold like you seem to perceive.

Titan

Realistically, regardless of the actual values involved Sonandri is correct.

There's three types of consumers, and only two are relevant here

1. A consumer with more money than sense & wants the bragging rights of having X product.
2. A consumer who feels a given product represents a good 'value' between performance & price.
3. A consumer who depends on a given product & simply has to buy that, specific product - regardless of cost.

Clearly #3 has no place in the argument - mobile processors simply are not a 'need'

Leaves you either consumers who just want the product & those that feel it represents a fair value proposition.

Share this page

About us

Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.